we'll break down the numbers and the politics. and growing gop position to president obama's labor pick. could the nomination of thomas perez be in trouble? welcome to the "journal editorial report."

riveting testimony this week from veteran diplomats about the deadly assault on the u.s. mission in benghazi. gregory hicks, deputy chief in libya, gave an emotional recounting of the night of september 11, 2012. the first public detailing from an on-the-ground official. his testimony draws new attention to the events surrounding the attack and how the administration handled its aftermath. >> when ambassador stevens talked to you perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you? >> he said, "greg, we're under attack." >> did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration? >> no, sir, he did not. >> so fast forward, mr. hicks, to the sunday talk shows and ambassador susan rice. she blamed this attack on a video. in fact, she did it five different times. what was your reaction to that? >> i was stunned. my jaw dropped.

and i was embarrassed. >> joining the panel this week, "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor dan hanniger, foreign affairs columnist bret stevens, and political diary editor jason riley. dan, what's the single most important takeaway you had from this hearing? >> i guess, paul, it is that there is such a vast distance between what gregory hicks described as happening that night and what the administration described for a week. what gregory hicks described was an intense fightfight in benghazi lasting all night involving heavy weaponry. that's september 11. on september 13, jay carney attributes it this california youtube video. five days later, susan rice goes on television and says the same thing. and in fact, on the following tuesday, september 18, jay carney is still attributing this

to a youtube video. why was the obama administration trying to suppress the events that gregory hicks -- >> your conclusion is based on hicks' testimony that they were trying to suppress -- >> yes -- >> the story that this was a terrorist attack? >> you can call it whatever they want. they didn't want to talk about what happened in benghazi that night. >> oh, and -- hicks himself said during the testimony that he was pressured into keeping his mouth shut by state department officials. the fbi did not talk to him during their investigation. this is about transparency, paul. it's a national security failure. and it's transparency in the aftermath. that's the problem here. the -- much of the media, particularly the liberal media, want to make this, oh, this is simple partisan bickering in congress. same old, same old. let's move on. no, this is about a -- an administration not being forthcoming months after the fact about what really happened. >> this is about an administration that sees the death of an american ambassador

and three of his -- three of his personnel as a political problem. not a national security problem, not a policy problem, but a political problem for an administration that's in the middle of a political campaign. and one of the stunning things for me coming out of greg hicks' testimony was his commenting on the fact that when he was trying to talk to visiting congressman, congressman chafitz from utah, the state department was concern thursday should be a lawyer present at all time. >> hillary clinton's former secretary of state, clinton's chief of staff, cheryl mills, who some of us remember from the -- with bill clinton was with the person who called hicks, according to his testimony and said "do not talk alone to a member of congress." >> yeah. and afterwards he also felt, as he put it, a chill from beth joan, another close aide to secretary clinton. you get a sense that here you have a kind of a failing surrounding secretary clinton

for whom the first priority is make sure that our political bosses aren't touched in any way by a serious -- >> wait a minute. do you blame them? it's the middle of a presidential election -- >> yes, i do blame them. >> why? >> they're not campaign officials, they're state department officials, and they're four dead american. that's a serious problem. that's an inability to separate their role as partisans and as -- as officials of the u.s. government. >> well, bear in mind, as well, that that night greg hicks or his aide spoke to the state department, describing what was going on. they talked to the pentagon joint chiefs and talked to the african command in stuttgart, germany, trying to get help. there was a wide array of senior officials in the u.s. government who at least knew who was going on there. and again, the question is, why did the administration -- >> what's your answer, dan? >> i think it's -- my answer is that the talking points were set in the white house. either by the president himself or one of his top aides, and then it forced everyone down below them to come up with these

totally implausible account of what happened. >> there's new evidence -- i want to get on the record for our viewers, there's new evidence here that's come out reported by abc news about the e-mail, not the e-mail, the talking points which were distributed to the government as a matter of routine about what to say about something like this. were altered 12 times, right. and this is a highly important part -- point. early on, we heard from jay carney, white house spokesman, that the talking points had all come from the intel community. >> the cia, from the intel community. now we're learning that various departments were getting in their equity -- basically bureaucratic cover-ups where they didn't want to point out the cia had been warning for months that diplomatic facility and western diplomats in benghazi were under increasing threat. and so it was a classic case of bureaucratic and political cover-up leading up to susan rice's testimony on the 15th of september. >> frank wolf, congressman from virginia, jason, has been arguing for the house to put

together a select committee instead of the five committees with disparate interests that are looking into this. do you support that idea? >> i think it's a very good idea. and look, they may come to the same conclusion as the committee that's already lookeded into this. we don't know. but an ambassador -- >> review board. >> yes. but yes, i think a bipartisan select committee, i think this does warrant that. it rises to this level. >> this review board never even interviewed secretary clinton, dan. do you understand that? >> it's impossible to explain. the fbi did not interview gregory hicks when they were in tripoli. i do not understand that. and i think that's why we need a reboot of the national security agencies on issues like that, and they're one of the only mechanisms to do that is a committee of congress like they did under watergate, looks into this, issues the report. >> dempsey, as well. chairman of the joint chiefs. when we come back, debate begins in the senate on a bipartisan bid to reform the nation's immigration system. a new report is putting conservatives against

conservatives over the true cost of the overhaul. we'll break down the numbers and handicap the politics next. [ man ] on december 17, 1903,

the wright brothers became the first in flight. [ goodall ] i think the most amazing thing is how like us these chimpanzees are. [ laughing ] [ woman ] can you hear me? and you hear your voice? oh, it's exciting! [ man ] touchdown confirmed. we're safe on mars. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ hi. [ baby fussing ] ♪ we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day afr day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] e pill eachmorning. 24 hours. zero heartbur ♪ [ male announcer ] sixty-two horsepower. fifty-three miles per hour. the gator rsx 850i.

it's a whole new species of gator.

the senate judiciary committee began its markup of the reform bill among a battle over conservatives about the true cost of overhaul. among it, the heritage foundation study that puts the pricetag at a staggering $6.3 trillion. but is that estimate fair? we're back with dan henniger, jason riley, and steve moore also joins the panel. jason, what do you make of the heritage report? accurate? >> i think it's incomplete. it's an incomplete look on how immigrants impact the u.s. economy. and our nation in general, not just the economy, our politics, culture, and so forth. it's -- it tries to measure a

person's worth by what they pay in taxes verse us what they receive in public benefits. i not that's an overly limiting way of looking at the impact of immigrants. it doesn't take into account how they add to u.s. productivity, adds to the flexibility of our labor markets, adds to naturing consumer demand which forces businesses to hire more, produce more goods and services. all of that is left out. that's really the problem with -- with how heritage is evaluated the impact of immigrants. >> it's a static fiscal accounting almost what you pay in and what you get out identify the course of a lifetime. steve, you looked at the report in detail. what do you think are the big problems with it if indeed you think there are? >> well, you know, look, i don't think there's a lot of disagreement among economists that immigration is good for the u.s. economy. i mean, you've got all the advantages that jason mentioned, immigrants start businesses, they are -- they come when they are young, they're hard work, all of those things really add

to the american economy. and they challenge that. they're basically saying that the immigrants use more government services than they pay in taxes. by the way, if you use the heritage analysis, unbelievably what it says is that 70% of americans were born here are a bad deal. because -- >> they take more out in benefits than they -- over their lifetimes pay in taxes. >> that is most of us. >> that's right. that's right. and basically what it says is look, people who have a college education are what they call net contributors. and people who don't have a college education are kind of net deranged. that's a dire, grim look at america. and i think it's very problematic i'm been working on this issue, by the way, for 25 years. it's always been an issue that splits the republican party and the conservative movement down the middle. what you're seeing is this fissure between what we call the

jam kemp pro-immigration wing and the pat buchanan wing. that's what the argument is all about. >> there are an awful lot of the -- of conservatives who support this who didn't the last time. some of them i assume for political reasons. but also groups of social conservatives. cultural conservatives in the religious conservative movement who think, you know, we need to get these immigrants here who are -- 1 million or so the estimate, out of the shadows for moral reasons, compassionate reasons. get them in the work force, make sure they can't be exploited by employers. where do you see the fissure, breakdowns on the right on this? >> paul, i think the breakdown is basically -- it does have a lot to do with the one word they have used over and over which is amnesty. the idea that they were here illegally, jumped the line, and violating the constitution. >> right. >> i think we have to understand something here that -- as steve said, it not only goes back 25

years, this issue goes back the entire life of the 20th century. and maybe even the 19th -- >> mexicans were coming to the united states to do this kind of work back in the 1920s. we've had struggled with this. it's basically -- >> the chinese -- the scotch/irish, it's always been an issue. >> as far as the mexicans go, in the 1940s and 1950s, we did create the program which created a legal process or system where they would come in, work, and then they would go back to mexico. the unions didn't like that, and they killed the brassero system. we've never had that mechanism since. the 1986 immigration law gave them amnesty, started this fight back then. we've never quite resolved them. i think that's what this new immigration bill is trying to do. >> looking at the point, on the mid 50s when the brassero started, it allowed agricultural workers to come and if back. illegal immigration plunged.

>> we know how to fix illegal immigration. this is a supply and democrat issue. -- demand issue. if you want fewer people e people coming in illegally, give them more legal ways to come. it's not just a law and order issue. i think some americans are anxious about aimmunizations, for instance. we have -- assimilation for instance, we have more bilingualism. >> don't they have point? >>h absolutely have a point, paul. but go after the multi-cultu multi-culturalis multi-culturalists. leave the immigrants alone. people who come here, they're not the ones pushing pling wall education. it's these others -- particularly on the left, doing it in their name. the people pushing for ethnic gerrymandering, for bilingual ballots and so forth. but don't blame the immigrants for that. blame the columbia faculty for that. >> on that point, the same on the cost of fiscal heritage. they're saying the welfare state is too big, we can't afford this. go after the welfare state then. even -- >> i think you have a point, go

after cutting the benefits and reforming the entitlement state. all right. when we come back -- we've got to go! a vote on president obama's labor pick is postponed as republican opposition it his nomination grows. the s there trouble ahead for thomas perez? why are twice as many people choosing verizon over any other carrier? many choose us because we have the largest 4glte network. others, because of our reputation for reliability. or maybe it's because we've received jd power and associates' customer service award 4x in a row. in the end, there are countless reasons. but one choi.

by all account, tom perez is not just a man with a heart for the poor, he is a committed ideologue who appears willing, quite frankly, to say or do anything, anything to achieve his ideological ends. >> tough words from senate minority leader mitch mcconnell about thomas perez, president obama's pick to lead the labor department. a committee vote on his nomination was postponed this

week amid mounting republican opposition. "wall street journal" editorial board member mary kissle has been following the story for us from the beginning and joins us now. why is this nomination so sdmefrl. >> several reasons. mr. perez is head of the civil rights division at the justice department. he was using a shaky legal theory to ecotract settlement out of banks. mr. perez did a deal with the city to get the case with drawn -- >> from the supreme court? >> from the supreme court docket. >> this was a case that st. paul had been litigating for how long? >> almost a decade. in addition the feds brought two claims again whistle blowers that could have brought home as much as $200 million to taxpayers but that wasn't all. he was -- after south carolina's voice recorder i.d. law was confirm -- voter i.d. law was confirmed by a court, he harassed the state. that's just the beginning, paul.

>> what about the emails that he had been using his personal account, personal e-mail account to conduct government business which is a violation of the federal records act? now that has become a source of contention, as well. explain. >> well, the house has been investigating this quid pro quo with the city of st. paul about a year now. well before he was nominated for labor secretary. in the course of that investigation, mr. perez didn't make himself available to investigators until right before -- >> we should say we asked him to talk to bus this, and he declined. >> that's right. in the course of the nomination, mr. perez was asked did you ever use your personal e-mail account for official business. he said, "i don't recall." well then separately, the investigators learned that he had. so he -- if you could say he told a fiction to investigators, but he certainly didn't tell the whole story. and now he is refusing to turn over -- >> he did turn over 35 emails. >> 34, one more was magically

found. and then investigators subpoenaed him for the rest. we're talking about 1,200, thereabouts, emails -- >> he and the government are resisting the subpoena? >> he still has not complied with the subpoena. >> jason, can the senate really confirm somebody who's resisting a congressional subpoena? >> a number they can -- we don't know if they will have the numbers. but he does deserve extra scrutiny. this theory that he's been using and that the justice department has been using is very disturbing, paul. it's known as disparate impact theory. it's using statistics to prove immigration, disregarding intense -- if you have -- >> rate of example -- >> if you have racially disproportionate outcomes, ipso facto means discrimination must be taking place. this is very disturbing, and it's disturbing that you have people like obama and holder and perez putting forward this sort of thinking. we've had a long history in this country of people in positions of authority using government powers to favor one group over

another. these folks seem to be more interested in making up for the past than in a level playing field. >> democrats seem still to be backing perez. how significant is mitch mcconnell's statement on the sfloor. >> i think it's very significant. it signals that the republican are still going to push to have 60 votes for this nomination. you had some senior members come out against it. mr. mcconnell, senator cornyn, senator rubio, grassley, and hatch. senator hatch said something very importance this week. he said, a lot of people don't feel mr. perez has been straightforward with us. this is the first time that you've had a senator identify one of the core problems with this nomination. mr. perez has been telling one story to the senate under oath. and other witnesses in the house investigation and documentary evidence has been telling another story about this st. paul -- >> do you think he should be confirmed? >> no. absolutely not. >> do you think he will be confirmed? glo. >> i don't think -- i'm not making those kind of predictions

on this show. >> all right. we have to take one more break. coming up, hits and misses of the week.

time for hits and misses of the week. mary, first to you. >> i'm giving a big hit to bhoef this week met a cuban dissident, one of the founding members of the ladies in white. the ladies who peacefully protest the brutal castro regime under threat of beatings, jailings or death. what a shot in the arm for cuba's democracy movement to have that photo taken. and a really welcome one given that president obama and even the previous pope have shunned the ladies. so shame on them and bully for post. >> all right. >> this is steven's theory of intellectual relativity which is a great genius does not equal good judgment. steven hawk, well-known physicist from cambridge decided to join an academic boycott of israel this week.

this is the same steven hawking who had no qualms visiting iran and china despite their well-known human rights abuses. while we admire professor hawking for his theory about black holes, i'm afraid he's gone into a black hole all his own. >> all right. steve? >> this week the dow jones industrial average hit 15,000 for the first time ever. paul, that is great news for investors. it's also a real tribute to the men and women who run american companies large and small. during a recession, american businesses became lean, mean fighting machines, they cut their waste, they became much more efficient, they deleveraged. wouldn't it be a wonderful thing, paul, if american government could become one half as efficient as american businesses are? >> all right. thanks. i sure hope it lasts. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, please send it to us at jer@foxnews.com. follow us on twitter at je

jeronfnc. thanks to panel. hope to see you right here next week. big stories getting coverage this week -- in cleveland, three young women kidnapped and held captive for more than ten years discovered and freed. the man responsible captured and charged. in phoenix, a 4-month-long murder trial was lurid -- with lurid and graphic details ends. a jury finds jodi arias guilty. hearing from key insiders about the attacks on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, revealing damaging information and raising real questions about the actions of our state department and the obama white house. the just department makes news with a report about gun violence. new jersey's governor had a big secret -- not